Le vendredi 17 avril 2009 09:47:27, Buchan Milne a écrit : > On Thursday 16 April 2009 14:18:13 Adrien Futschik wrote: > > Le jeudi 16 avril 2009 14:04:44, Michael Ströder a écrit : > > > Adrien Futschik wrote: > > > > I am aware I should migrate, but for the moment, the only solution I > > > > have would be to migrate to OpenLDAP 2.3.32, > > > > > > Why? Please don't take this personally. But if that is because you > > > strictly rely on Linux distribution packages I'd like to note that your > > > operational concept is already flawed. > > > > Because the client I am working for uses source-compiled versions of > > OpenLDAP and is curently running 2.3.11 or 2.3.32. There is no newer > > package for the moment. > > It should be almost no effort to build packages of 2.3.43 if you have > packages of 2.3.32 ... depending on how you build them. > > > > Could I use OpenLDAP 2.3.11 as master and OpenLDAP 2.3.32 a slave for > > > > a while ? > > > > I have justed tested it. OpenLDAP 2.3.11 as master and OpenLDAP 2.3.32 as > > slave : it WORKS. The question is, is it reliable ? > > Well, the contextCSN disappearing from the master most likely won't change > if you keep running the same code on the master, so I doubt this will help > you. > > explain it here, but upgrading is'nt always an option. > > > > For your information, between the time OpenLDAP releases a version and the > > time the projects might actualy use it, is about 6-7 month. That's because > > of the whole compilation/testing/validation/packaging/releasing process > > that the client is using. It has been so for many year now. > no more than 1 hour, if they are using any kind of decent build system ... > (since OpenLDAP has had quite a comprehensive test suite since about 2.2.20, > which can be run during the compilation/packaging). |